[liberty]

If capital is built on savings, then why do you consider America as a capitalist country?

If America isn't a capitalist country. What would you call it, Keynesian?

I don't consider the U.S. as a socialist country. I'm not attacking socialism.

[FallenRaptor]

The United States is a capitalist country because it's predominant relations of production are capitalist. Workers are wage earners, they work for owners of capital(capitalists), and they use their employer's capital to produce commodities which go to the capitalists to later sell in order to get a surplus.

[Kasu]

Private Property exists, therefore it's capitalism.

[Dr House]

If capital is built on savings, then why do you consider America as a capitalist country?

What are you talking about? First off, capitalism is defined as the private ownership of the means of production. Second, if you're trying to imply that there is no capital in America you're wrong about that. If that were true, we'd be much poorer than we currently are.

[liberty]

I never said there wasn't capital. Even european socialist countries have capital.

Our country is 11 trillion dollars in debt and counting.

Nationalizing business

Manipulating interest rates

Welfare

Income Tax

Medicare

Social Security

Even our monetary policy is anti capitalist.

[FallenRaptor]

Capitalism is not necessarily laissez faire and socialism is not big guv'ment. There are no socialist countries in Europe.

Try again.

[liberty]

I know that. Thats why I called it 'european socialism'.

I don't consider the U.S. as a socialist country. I'm not attacking socialism.

[Ademir]

I never said there wasn't capital. Even european socialist countries have capital.

Our country is 11 trillion dollars in debt and counting.

Nationalizing business

Manipulating interest rates

Welfare

Income Tax

Medicare

Social Security

Even our monetary policy is anti capitalist.

All of that is compatible with capitalism. Capitalism is simply private ownership of the means of production; the fact that some of the wealth generated is returned to society in the form of welfare, does not change its essentially capitalist nature. A Keynesian society is just a particular form of capitalist society (not that I think the USA is Keynesian).

[liberty]

Very true Ademir

[Doctor State]

Private Property exists, therefore it's capitalism.

It's more accurate to say that property is far more private than collective, so the US is much more capitalist than socialist. It's one of the most capitalist countries on Earth after Australia, Ireland, and a few others.

[liberty]

It's safe to say we are co-owners with the government because we pay property taxes on our land. Those who don't pay proporty taxes on their land; have absolute ownership.

Ever heard of a allodial title?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title

We appear free, but IMO we're not.

[FallenRaptor]

Private property is neither a special or defining characteristic of capitalism. Forms of private and state property have always existed under different economic systems(unless you want slavery and serfdom to be considered capitalist). If the property form does not change the basic practices of production and exchange, then there is no difference between state and private property. Even if the US government nationalized the entire economy it would still be capitalist as long as wage-labor is subordinate to capital and most goods & services are commodities.

[Doctor State]

Capitalists would disagree with you.

[Red Star]

Red Star Note: Less one-liners please. You can always expand on simple statements.

[Doctor State]

Capitalists would disagree with the definition of capitalism as dependent on commodities or capital to labor. A capitalist -- meaning a philosophical advocate of the free market, not an industrialist -- defines capitalism by the status of property and the degree of limitation on trade. This puts us in the peculiar situation where one country can be socialist by capitalist standards and capitalist by socialist standards.

[FallenRaptor]

I'm not concerned with what capitalist philosophers have to say. I'm concerned with correct scientific analysis. Capitalism is a socio-economic system, more specifically a mode of production and exchange. The best way to understand such systems is to understand them in practice, which is what I base my definition on. Private property has been important in capitalism in the same sense that vassals were important in feudalism, but both are ultimately superficial characteristics.

[Doctor State]

I'm not concerned with what capitalist philosophers have to say. I'm concerned with correct scientific analysis.

No you're concerned with correct socialist scientific analysis. And there's nothing wrong with socialist analysis.

[FallenRaptor]

The correct scientific analysis is correct regardless of socio-economic preference. Just because capitalist ideologues are less likely to accept that definition than socialists doesn't negate it's scientific character. A scientific critique of it, however, could negate it.

[Doctor State]

What makes it scientific? Is it more falsifiable? Is the source of the definition objective, non-socialist third parties? Has it been made more rigorous through experimentation or analysis of the data? I'm just trying to understand what makes that definition scientific and the other definition ideology.

[FallenRaptor]

As I said before, the definition is based on the practice(activity) of production and distribution. I don't think I need to prove to you that all capitalist firms employ wage-laborers and use them to produce commodities, unless you feel this to be false or inadequate for defining capitalism(a word that that was coined and defined by Karl Marx to describe a certain socio-economic system).